Table 1 A comparison between different wearable blood pressure estimation studies and devices

From: The use of photoplethysmography for assessing hypertension

Year Author Wearable type Sensors Transmission mode # Subjects f r (f,SBP)
2019 Redha et al.56 Wristband PPG N/R n1 = 106 Feature set 0.69
2017 Holz et al.53 Eyeglass frame and finger probe PPG N/R n1 = 4 PTT 0.64–0.84
2017 Zhang et al.43 Armband ECG and PPG USB cable n1 = 10 PAT N/R
2016 Plante et al.50 Mobile phone (camera + microphone) Heart sound and PPG N/R n1 = 85 VTT ≈0.4
2016 Seeberg et al.44 Chest belt ECG and PPG Bluetooth n1 = 16 PTT −0.56
2016 Griggs et al.42 Bicep- and wrist-worn device ECG and PPG Radio frequency n1 = 8 PAT −0.7
2016 Zheng et al.17 Armband ECG and PPG Bluetooth n1 = 9, n2 = 15 PAT N/R
2015 Munnoch and Jiang79 Handheld ECG and PPG Bluetooth n1 = 2 PAT N/R
2014 Jung et al.39 Finger probe and chest pad ECG and PPG Bluetooth N/R PAT N/R
2014 Thomas et al.80 Wrist watch ECG and PPG Bluetooth N/R PAT −0.55
2012 Miao et al.81 Portable device ECG and PPG Bluetooth N/R N/R N/R
2009 Guo et al.40 Wrist watch and finger probe ECG and PPG ZigBee N/R PAT N/R
2008 Pandian et al.45 Vest-worn device ECG and PPG Radio frequency n1 = 25 PAT N/R
  1. r Pearson’s correlation coefficient, f PPG-based feature(s), N/R not reported, n1 number of healthy subjects, n2 number of hypertensive subjects, PAT pulse arrival time, PTT pulse transit time, VTT vascular transit time